HC Deb 31 May 1956 vol 553 cc424-5
22. Mr. Awbery

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that certain industrial workers will be required to follow their own occupation in the event of a national emergency; that National Service training is, therefore, of no advantage to them, or to the nation; and if, in order to save the cost of training such men under the National Service and obtain the benefit of two years of productivity in industries which are short of labour, he will introduce legislation to exempt them from the National Service scheme.

Mr. Iain Macleod

I would remind the hon. Member that the main purpose of National Service today is to enable the Forces to meet current commitments and no longer primarily to build up a reserve of trained men who would be available in war. I could not, therefore, accept a suggestion based on these grounds.

Mr. Awbery

Is it not a terrible economic waste and a folly to take men from their jobs and train them for a task that they will never be called upon to perform? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a first step to doing away with conscription, deal with the industries in which the men will be called upon to remain instead of going into the Army?

Mr. Macleod

I dealt with that very point in my reply to the main Question. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to paragraph 3 of the White Paper on National Service published last October, he will find these words:

It is no longer primarily a question of training men who would be available in war. Therefore, the premises on which the hon. Gentleman bases his Question are unsound.

Mr. Callaghan

To which war is the Minister referring? Does he not know that a cut in National Service is long overdue?